tv [untitled] May 26, 2011 2:00pm-2:30pm PDT
vital restaurants for a long time. the impact of their retail and a few restaurants that were there. people did not have any assurance. i think that is something else. i think that the change with the removing of the video store definition is really smart. i foresee the video stores will be absolutely obsolete within the next five years and they will only come back in the incarnation of novelty stores. like people buy records because it is just so rare. >> just the rated disposal of the malone is not smart environmentally anymore with all the options you have online. the other issue or around tour buses -- i know that is an issue of navy and g-8. i know there are rules governing it, but we know lots of young
people get together and organize for the week and tour buses. they have them outside the building i live in all the time. one of the girls in my building loves to party bosses. that is not a planning issue. maybe this is not the appropriate agency to deal with that. i do not know if you could prevent having a party buses brought people off at restaurants and bars, but i know what she is speaking of and have seen it most often in the marina. but i think the legislation over all goes in the right direction. i prefer the second option where you keep the existing controls in place but you minimize the number of conditional uses. one of the most salient points in the video you just showed was people paying rent on a space for six months + $4,000, and you are paying rent on a space that you are also going to build out into your restaurant, and that is a lot of lost money and time.
a lot of the issues people have concerns about have more to do with the operator then the planning code. commissioner antonini: i think this is very good that we're taking this up. unfortunately, our definitions are a patchwork much like other things. all of these things develop ad hoc rather than by plans sometimes, and this is sort of what has happened here. a lot of these clarifications have come as a reaction to concerns in particular neighborhoods and over saturation, and we have something that is really impossible to decipher. i think the supervisor, to the extent that he has brought the specific instances, probably almost all of us would agree that most of these individual instances need to be corrected, but it does not really address the whole problem, which is a bigger one. i like the idea of some broad
overreaching definitions that would not be all-inclusive. obviously, additional controls would be necessary within these categories under certain circumstances while still promoting business. i do not think you can just have these categories and say something like, a "if you are limited restaurant, you can just go in anywhere if you have food and no of all, or apparently is offside alcohol." i'm not sure exactly how that works, but oftentimes, the problems are not centered around alcohol use. some of the areas of restaurants that are the most crowded and perhaps in the worst repair are often some of them do not have any alcohol service at all. we have to look at this separate from that issue, although i like the categories staff has come up with here in general as overreaching ones, and i liked the fact that the distinction between beer and wine and spirits has become less
definite, which was something that -- something out of the past. i remember growing up in the 1950's were children could not go into bars but could going to restaurants. as long as there was food service, you could sit with your parents even though they might be having alcoholic beverages. this was sort of the way. also bars used to close on election day because was felt that they would influence voting by buying drinks for people, so you had to close during the hours of the election. a lot of our laws are no longer really pertinent, so i like the fact that you include a full- service restaurant or restaurant in the -- not a limited restaurant that has food service and would have, you know, all different categories of alcoholic beverages from what i understand from what you're suggesting. i think -- on some of the other concerns that were brought up, they were certainly good
concerns. they were a little further -- about some of the problems that may exist surrounding restaurants and bars, but for purposes of definition, we should begin with an outline, as you have provided, probably including the changes that supervisor mirkarimi is bringing up, but i think we need to go further and bring some broad categories up and try to look at where we can expedite restaurant, but also what tom was saying about the saturation levels. i'm not saying that i am as concerned about saturation levels as in the neighborhoods where there really are not many restaurants, or there are not restaurants that have broad appeal. we have seen many neighborhoods who have sort of begun to become economically more viable, beginning with the establishment of restaurants that attract people in the neighborhood as
well as people from other neighborhoods. if we can direct our new restaurants into areas where we are underserved, i think that would be a good policy to have. those are some of my general thoughts, but i think we are moving in the right direction. commissioner fong: i wanted to speak broadly and remind people that the restaurant business and the epicurean business in san francisco is part of the lifeblood of the city. it adds to the vibrancy of neighborhoods. it adds to the liveliness of the street. it adds to property values. so i am supportive of things overall as they are going here. as far as problem restaurants, i want to remind folks that while we have problem restaurants, we have hundreds of successful restaurants, and i would hate for us to start to make policy decisions based on a few problem operators, although they are out there. but there are many success stories. as far as bars, we just had one
last week that fell into the category where they were applying for a full liquor license but serving obviously find cocktails. i like that we're taking time to ask the community groups. i am interested about what the merchants' associations around the city had to say about it. i understand it will probably be a little different depending on each, but i am in favor thus far. >> thank you, commission, for your comments. i wanted to ask you to keep a couple of things in mind. as we continue to reach out to the community and hear from members of the neighborhood as well as margin goods, two things in response to your comments. one is that the section 312 process will remain in place for every one of these restaurants, no matter the size, no matter how small, and that process in itself is a bit of a burden.
the additional layer of the additional use causes the concern. the 30-day notice, requires submission of materials to the department. waiting essentially a couple of months for that notice to expire. it does inform the neighborhood of typically the individual property owner, although the permissions do run with the land and not the individual operator. it does give a lot of information to the neighborhood about each of these proposed uses, so keep that in mind as we hear about concerns related to individual uses in the smaller category. also, this is by no means meant to be a one-size-fits-all solutions. we absolutely acknowledge that neighborhood controls have developed over time in response to individual neighborhoods desires. the legislation is flexible, and as he continued year from individual neighborhoods, we are open to tweaking this as necessary, but the goal again for overall simplification should remain in our minds. >> i want to thank supervisor
mirkarimi's office for expanding the time and giving the community until august when but, and for all your work on this with everyone, and staff also. i think it is kind of exciting, really. time to, you know, revised a lot of this. in time, maybe people will sort of reject online purchasing, and we will have to come back here and they visit bookstores and record stores as they begin to proliferate all over the city again. that is just probably a fantasy of mine, so, anyway. but thank you for your work. commissioner sugaya. however i ignore you? sorry about that. commissioner sugaya: i do not have anything to say yet. commissioner olague: that would be unusual. commissioner sugaya: do we have any idea how many video stores there actually are?
there was a neighborhood one down the street from me that was an entrepreneur or video store, not a chain, and he went out of business. there's a blockbuster down the street, and they still seem to be open, but do we have any idea how many are around? >> the only one i know of is on castro street. commissioner sugaya: so that prediction that i -- >> [inaudible] commissioner sugaya: not to prolong the discussion, but i think that the other form of distribution may be kiosks. and if there is so much online going on, especially more with high-definition on the order of what might be contained on blu- ray disks, there's a tremendous implications for bandwidth, which translates into fiber optics, which translates into
more little boxes on the street, so it is all kind of connected in one way or the other year. commissioner olague: i never thought i would love and the closing of borders. >> or a blockbuster. commissioner olague: that is beside the point. commissioner borden: i would like to move to continue the item. commissioner olague: we have to period to august 4. >> thank you, commissioners. the motion on the floors to continue the item. on that motion -- [roll call] thank you, commissioners. the item is continue to august 4. commissioner olague: we are taking a 15-minute recess. >> thank you.